I think you would be better to include in your house rule an additional rule that limits the maximum flak rating of TF. Personally, I don't understand why this game overrated the effectiveness of anti aircraft fires (as well as F4U’s dog-fighting ability - Historically, this aircraft was really good in air battles? ).

Since the end of 1943, due to unreasonably high flak rating of U.S. TF, along with F4U, the most formidable fighter in this game, it would be almost impossible for IJ KB to cause even slight damage to U.S. carrier force opreated by a human palyer, sometimes even transport TFs consisting solely of MCS and AP! Can we imagine the situation that a half of one hundred bombers were destroyed merely by AAF of APs, failing to sink any ship? Although, historically, US navy’s AAF were much more effective than IJN’s due to a VT fuse and bofors guns, this extreme result is too far from reality and makes IJN player rely on Kamikaze tactics in a defensive way rather than attempting to do a carrier battle, even if a IJN player's KB still has a high level of air pilots.

RE over rating AA fire of large TFs, well, its a DOS game and there are insufficient resources to do everything. The game has an amazing amount of detail for a DOS game. They went to the max. Back in the old days, a lot of people had to moggie foogie things to free up conventional memory so the game would run.

The undesirable side effect problem applies to flak limits. I've played with flak limits as low as 3250. Problem is, by late in the war, a USN surface combat TF of modern BBs ends up with 4 BBs, 2 CLs, and 8 DDs, not sufficient to encounter an IJN BB TF. So unless the Allied player has already wiped out the IJN BBs he has to avoid surface combat.

In one of my current games, we have a flak limit of 3800. By using TF 56, which undercounts flak, I can get 6 or 7 modern BBs in a TF. That puts it a lot closer to what an IJN TF is likely to have. Allies should not have a severe disadvantage in surface combat due to the flak limit, but certain limitations are unavoidable.

Not to Allied players when there's a flak limit: You have to target IJN BBs early and sink some of them.

I realize that the limitation of the flak rating may cause a serious penalty to Allied surface TF. What about applying a different limitation to TFs, depending upon their types? For instance, 3100 for carrier TFs....... 3800 for suface combat TFs.

Fortunately, I and Skipjack agreed to set the maximum TF flak at 3050 in our PBEM game.

Yamamoto//

I guess most users including you who still play this game are "not" at the middle level.

I realize that the limitation of the flak rating may cause a serious penalty to Allied surface TF. What about applying a different limitation to TFs, depending upon their types? For instance, 3100 for carrier TFs....... 3800 for suface combat TFs.

That's an idea. All knds of possibilities.

Seeing your 3050 number, that may be what I played with against AI. Just a practice game inhibited by commonly used rules. I think its a good idea to play with a set of rules against AI before using those rules in a PBEM game.

Anyway, all sorts of additional effets, so a flak limit need to be designed carefully. I recall searching for DDs with low flak ratings to put in air combat TFs so I could maintain the desired ASW rating. And CLs with low flak ratings to put in surface combat TFs. Detroit I remember was good for that, torpedoes but less flak.

I suppose we couldnt' be lucky enough for someone to figure out why TF56 under counts flak (its been present since the beginning with SSI and duplicate the error to our benefit for a few other TF numbers.

I recalled the Skipjack also suggested a rule that limit the size of an army that can be deployed in an atoll - one Division or equivalent plus one construction LCU.

I don’t know whether this rule is popularly adopted, but I think this rule is very great if both players want to make their game close to reality. The rule would decrease the strategic value of an atoll and as a result, each player would focus on capturing historically important areas.

We know that an atoll cannot provide space and environment enough to place a large size of armies and supplies for them. It means in reality that it cannot operate as the front base from which an invading fleet loading more than one division departs. However, without this rule, after capturing central pacific atolls, an allied player need not depart its fleet from the farther area, and could invade Marinas Islands or even Japan by one or two turns. This would be the same for an IJ player who deploys many army divisions in Aleutian Islands or Midway to take the Northwestern America or Hawaii.

I hope someone figure out another rule reflecting differences between types of lands, although I realize a risk that too many rules may deprive flexibility and playability.

I've played my last few games with the one Divison per atoll and one Division per attacking TF maximums. It seems fairly popular.

It works very well. I've covered the atolls where the Divisions are staged by sending in smaller LCUs from farther back on the same turn as they leave for the invasion.

In my current games we're calling a Division a Division, whether over sized or undersized, and a Divisional equivalent 1200 shipping points. SBFs count as regular LCUs, not Eng LCUs.

Removal of excess same LCUs turn using the attacking TFs has always been possible. The first Division to land at a well defended atoll has huge casualties and needs to go to the rear anyway. Sometimes the second also.

With the landing limit, it takes a strong ship and arial bombardment to be successful. All reasonably realistic.

I guess most users including you who still play this game are "not" at the middle level.

May not be typical, but my last five or six games have been with people who never played PBEM before. Playing against AI is very poor preparation for playing against a human. Mostly useful for learning game mechanics.

I think there are still many users playing this game, and I has also got two opponents within a month. If I had attempted to find more actively, I would have got more.

Also, I believe that however old-fashioned this game is, they could not completely stop playing this game. I played first this game as a SSI version approximately 15 years ago and have played numerous pacific war games afterward, but this game is still the best among strategic-level pacific war games.

UV is also a good game, but it was designed to focus only on a tactical-level operation. WITP is ostensibly a complete package for the pacific war game mania, but sacrifices play-ability too much for details and requires players to handle all tedious chores; in addition, "one day-one turn" cycle makes it impossible for most users to enjoy a grand campaign long by a PBEM game. Japanese Pacific war games are not a real "war" game, and don't try to reflect even slight level of reality. Sometime, I feel they made the games for honoring pity BB sisters Yamato and Musashi.

I would not be astonished even if there are some users playing this game 10 years afterward.

Due to other PW games I'm committed to playing, in the past two months I have had to decline a game from a previous opponent, and recently received a request from someone new for a game which I also had to decline. One was for a game with the new scenario, and I really regret not being able to play that game, particularly if the potential opponent wanted to play Allies. Both my opponents on the new scenario wanted to play IJ.

Yamamoto, perhaps part of the problem in obtaining an opponent is your statements about your skill. No one can tell how good they are playing against AI. Beating AI means nothing. And I think a lot of people know that.

I've done fairly well in PBEM in the past, but right now I'm getting beaten up real bad in one of my games. I'm currently preparing airfields in the central US to bomb the Mitsubishi factory, which is expected to be located in Los Angeles. <G>

ORIGINAL: bradk No one can tell how good they are playing against AI. Beating AI means nothing. And I think a lot of people know that.

Unfortunate, but true. I think the only game in this genre that had a worse AI than this was that.. "thing" back in the 90's, it was put out by Three-Sixty just after they got bought and it had Jim Dunnigan's name on it. I mean, *barf*.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk I'm currently preparing airfields in the central US to bomb the Mitsubishi factory, which is expected to be located in Los Angeles. <G>